ARF bid for a more secure and stable region

ARF bid for a more secure and stable region

By Bantarto Bandoro

JAKARTA (JP): The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was launched
during the ASEAN Post Ministerial Meeting, which aimed at
building mutual confidence, preserving stability and ensuring
growth in the Asia-Pacific region.

The ARF will convene its third meeting in Jakarta on July 23.
Indonesia has been consistent in rallying support for the role of
the ARF in managing post-Cold War security relations.

Being the host of this year's ARF meeting, Indonesia must make
sure that the meeting produces significant results. Indonesia
must also be sensitive to the fact that regional expectations of
the ARF have grown.

The thinking behind the idea of the ARF when it was first
launched in Singapore in July 1993 was to establish a cooperative
security arrangement for the Asia-Pacific region.

The ARF reflected the desire of Asia-Pacific countries to
ensure a peaceful and stable political and security environment
for the region and was described as constituting an integral part
of the ASEAN dialog process.

The first two ARF meetings were considered successful because
an agreement was reached to continue the process of consultation
and dialog on political and security issues in the Asia-Pacific
region.

But different Asia-Pacific countries have different
expectations of, and responses to, the ARF. The developed members
want quick progress toward developing concrete measures of
security cooperation.

The ASEAN states have adopted a much more gradual, informal
and cautious approach. These differences have raised some doubts
as to how soon the ARF will be able to provide solutions to
regional security problems.

ASEAN's position on the ARF role is reflected in the statement
made by Indonesia's foreign minister, Ali Alatas, that "the ARF
is not meant as an instrument to solve problems and is meant as a
consultative forum." ASEAN's position on the pace of the ARF is
that the progress will be evolutionary, providing a necessary
"breathing space" for the transition from the Cold War security
structure in the Asia-Pacific to its future structure.

However, security issues in the Asia-Pacific region will
become even more complex, which could lead one to raise doubts
about the ARF's potential as the cornerstone of cooperative
security in the region.

Gerald Segal, a senior fellow at the London-based
International Institute of Strategic Studies, asserts that events
in Taiwan, Korea and the South China Sea make plain that the ARF
has virtually no role. He adds that it is an optimistic illusion
to believe that the ARF can deal with such hard security issues
(Far Eastern Economic Review, May 2, 1996).

While some are less enthusiastic about the future role of the
ARF, others are convinced that, though it will move forward in an
evolutionary manner, the ARF is the most appropriate forum for
regional states to discuss common security issues. The best way
to cope with the future instabilities in the region is for the
ARF to put on its agenda the security issues which have the
greatest global implications, such as the long-standing Korean
impasse, China's intentions and nuclear weapons proliferation.

The task of the coming meeting is for the ARF to break new
ground with security-enhancing proposals. This would mean that
the ARF needs to choose a faster pace than some of the more
cautious ARF members (notably ASEAN) would prefer.

As the host of the meeting, Jakarta needs to raise the
awareness of ARF members, particularly ASEAN, that the forum's
future role and reputation depend not on whether it can promote
healthier alternatives to deterrence-based security strategies,
but on its ability to accommodate the different security
priorities of the developed members.

Even though it is in the driving seat of the ARF, ASEAN should
allow the major powers to assume a leading role in managing post-
Cold War regional security.

Jakarta should also assert that, since it continues to
register support for the ARF and although ASEAN's method of
consensus has been accepted, the ARF's future success and role
should not be judged on its utility as a consultative forum, but
on its ability to integrate as many countries in the Asia Pacific
as possible into a security process favored by the majority of
the members.

Thus, in spite of the view that the ARF should move gradually,
Indonesia, through the ARF meeting, should scatter seeds that
enable the ARF to move faster toward becoming a mechanism or
process for conflict resolution.

The ARF has been identified as the best means to promote
cooperative security in the Asia-Pacific region. The challenge
facing the ARF is how soon the Asia-Pacific region will witness
real multilateralism, bearing in the mind that not all members of
ARF, particularly China, are ready to go for multilateralism.

It is generally agreed that the best way to balance China's
growing strength is to engage it in a multilateral dialog forum.
But, for some countries in the region, balancing China through
unilateral, bilateral or multilateral means is still a security
option.

Multilateralism cannot automatically deter balancing behavior.
But one would agree that balancing behavior will still have to be
regulated in order to prevent it from having negative
implications on regional order.

Thus, Indonesia must table norms of inter-state behavior
applicable to all Asia-Pacific countries. If such norms can be
initiated, then the regional order desired by the ARF founders
can be realized. The forum's bid for a more secure region should
not be constrained by the fact that it has little history of
region-wide good will or cooperation on security issues.

In other words, practical results are essential if regional
security cooperation is to progress and the region's stability
enhanced.

The writer is with the Department of International Affairs,
CSIS, Jakarta.

Window A:

Indonesia, through the ARF meeting, should scatter seeds that
enable the ARF to move faster toward becoming a mechanism or
process for conflict resolution.

Window B:

Indonesia must table norms of inter-state behavior applicable
to all Asia-Pacific countries.